It’s official: Search for the Lost Giants is a dud! According to preliminary figures released yesterday by A.C. Nielsen, Curse of Oak Island brought in more than 2.6 million live plus same day viewers, while Search for the Lost Giants squandered nearly 40 percent of its lead in, bagging just under 1.6 million live plus same day viewers, fewer than the 8 PM rerun of Curse of Oak Island. The new series’ performance was so far below expectations that History chose not to mention the show in bragging about its Tuesday night ratings performance in a press release.

The numbers are especially disappointing since they represent only a minor improvement over the typical viewer haul for America Unearthed or Ancient Aliens on sister station H2, a channel seen in far fewer homes. History is seen in 99 million homes, while H2 is available to just 63 million homes, according to A+E Networks figures. Among Search viewers, just 500,000 were in the coveted adults 18-49 bracket, meaning that two thirds of the program’s viewers were over the age of 50 or under 18. (Very few are likely to be under 18.) By contrast, 1.1 million adults 18-49 watched Curse, an increase of 24% over last year. Viewership for Search, and its stars, Jim and Bill Vieira, may have been impacted by History’s decision to air the pilot episode opposite election night coverage, but since Curse actually gained 4% over its season one premiere while airing on the same night opposite the same coverage, this seems unlikely. This hasn’t stopped the media from using Search for the Lost Giants as an excuse to give conspiracy theorists free reign to rant about Smithsonian conspiracies and lost giants. The Huffington Post, for example, had the Vieiras on their webcast to discuss giants. But far worse: On the community blogs for South Milwaukee Now,Kristan T. Harris, a 2012 Republican platform committee member and libertarian activist, used the show as an excuse to rant about how the government is trying to suppress the truth about Bible giants—under the heading of “The Critical Thinker!” Apparently Harris has been publishing a series of articles on old newspaper accounts of giants on the community blog of South Milwaukee Now, and these attracted the attention of Search’s Jim Vieira. Harris praises Scott Wolter as a “trailblazer” and also delivers this masterpiece of journalistic research in condemning the Smithsonian for not endorsing Harris’s belief in Bible giants:

The Smithsonian Institute seems to be a recurring theme in recent controversial discoveries. So why the “Giant Cover Up”? Federal whistle-blower Stew Webb claimed on The Rundown Live that fraternity and secret society Skull & Bones holds all the powerful positions of influence in the Smithsonian. He was married to one of the “Bushes”. If true, make it known that the Skull & Bones organization is a branch of the Illuminati, set into motion by one Adam Weishaupt, who was funded by House of Rothschild as published by Myron C. Fagan in his 1967 manuscript, “The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations”.

The quotation marks around “Bushes” are a nice touch, but the tie-in to the Jewish Banking Conspiracy only serves to underscore how the quest for Bible giants, like so many other right-wing historical fantasies, is inseparable from a cultural revitalization movement focused on Christian fundamentalism. Stew Webb, self-described whistleblower, proudly quotes fans on his paranoid-survivalist-conspiracy theory website praising him for going after “Zionist organized crime,” and presents “evidence” from an alleged US Intelligence source that the Jews are in league with “djinn” and “demons” to take over the world. The use of such terms makes plain that the people they are taking it from are good, God-fearing Christians—the kind that buy the “survival seeds” and “patriot supplies” he hawks for profit. I am dumbfounded that Harris can be a libertarian and a member of the GOP platform committee and still think that the government is run by evil Jews and their secret Illuminati bloodline henchmen. So why does Harris work for them? After watching the quest for giants descend into anti-Semitism, I think we need a bit of a palate cleanser to finish up today. Usually when celebrities opine on their love of Ancient Aliens they say something really stupid about how deeply they believe everything Giorgio Tsoukalos says, like Megan Fox and Katy Perry have done. Fortunately, Daniel Radcliffe seems to live up to his Gothic near-namesake Ann Radcliffe by finding a skeptical explanation for the supreme silliness of Ancient Aliens, as he told People magazine last week:

I went through a heavy Ancient Aliens phase. It’s so silly but brilliant. I was like, “How are they going to distort history to involve aliens in this one?” I feel like it has become the template for all other crazy History Channel shows.

Now if only the rest of the media would pick up on this and stop helping History and H2 distort history for profit.

PERSONALLY I AM TOTALLY HOOKED ON THIS ONE. LIKE THESE GUYS I HAVE BEEN RESEARCHING THESE LOST GIANTS FOR YEARS ON THE INFORMATION HIGHWAY. TOTALLY FACINATING AND I PRAY TO THE GOOD LORD HISTORY CHANNEL WILL RENEW IT.THEY ARE A VITAL CLUE TO OUR LOST HISTORY. PLEASE CONSIDER ANOTHER CHANCE FOR THESE GUYS. JUDGING BY THE DATES ON THIS SITE NO ONE HAS A CLUE WHAT HAS UNFOLDED ON THIS SHOW..AND YES, I WOULD NOT MISS OAK ISLAND FOR ANYTHING.

Reply

,

11/6/2014 02:59:15 am

Jason... that "muzzle' felt Henry Luce level in what it knew
behind the scenes. usually i read the editorial section and
am a political animal. i sometimes look at reviews of plays,
films and records, but then again, TIME Magazine sometimes
prints reviews of things in the entertainment industry. I feel
that the muzzle had nothing to do with how perceptive or rude
we all as a group were at this blog over the past 3 to 6 months
and everything to do with some market testing data HISTORY
had done up as in recently. Asking if H or H2 will bury "turkey"
before Thanksgiving prior to any stuffing being made up or lots
of Bay State cranberry sauce for one and all is up there to the
Radical Right wondering if the Mars Rover is in the process of
burying that Martian femur! This puts an atmospheric level of
pressure akin to the surface of JUPITER on Scott Wolter's bees.
Beehives. Steel studs. Medieval symbolism. Templar Lore...

Reply

Walt

11/6/2014 03:39:24 am

Isn't 1.7 million viewers among the highest ever for a History series debut? They may be in 99 million homes, but almost nobody watches. They don't have many recurring series that beat that overall number. Pawn Stars, American Pickers, and now Oak Island are all that come to mind. The "Giants" numbers are comparable to Top Gear, which they consider a success and have renewed multiple times.

It's all relative. When Ancient Aliens was on History, it was doing 2.2 million a week. If a show loses almost half the viewers from its lead in, it's a dud regardless of how well it does relative to other shows. It's relatively high sampling is due to holdover from "Oak Island," but the fact that it lost so many viewers shows that they weren't that interested.

Reply

Mark L

11/6/2014 03:42:00 am

Thought this might give a few people a laugh - my wife reads "People" magazine, and they've got an interview with Daniel Radcliffe. When asked about his last TV obsession, he replies:

"I went through a heavy Ancient Aliens phase. It's so silly but brilliant. was like 'how are they going to distort history to involve aliens in this one?' I feel like it has become the template for all other crazy History Channel shows".

I knew I liked him!

Reply

Mark L

11/6/2014 03:45:02 am

Whoops! Should have read to the bottom of the article.

Reply

EP

11/6/2014 03:59:23 am

Synchronicity! :)

Residents Fan

11/6/2014 06:50:04 am

The most historically accurate program on "History" might
be the drama series "Vikings"-and that's probably because
History doesn't produce that show, only distribute it.

Sure, there's a few errors (Russia gets mentioned before it existed, and a character is nearly crucified by Christians-who did not
use crucifixion to execute people) but compared to
something like "Ancient Aliens", "Vikings" is something
that teaches people some actual history.

Reply

Kal

11/6/2014 04:09:19 am

The ivy league club Skull and Bones is not related to the fictional modern Illuminati. Ooh, but that's what they want you to think, like Freemasons. Both are clubs with secret rules therefore that means it's Illuminati. The fringe thinking is based on a false correlation. It is secret therefore it has to be the same secret. It is strange therefore it must be a conspiracy, aliens, giants, etc. Any rational and senseble answer cannot be because it's too obvious. You send a crew into the woods to look for bigfoot and they rustle around and go boo, like if you're in a house that's creaky and old, and you go boo. It's a ghost, see. As for ancient aliens, it's another level of impossible made up pseudo archeology, and to a lesser extend, America Unearthed. Both claim their fringe fake sense is right and everyone is conspiring to hide the truth they somehow come across, and then they usually bait and switch, as they have a nothing cave, or a nothing pile of rocks, or a clearly modern forgery on their hands. They're a bit like the news these days, with entertainment above substance, because it sells. Conspiracy seems to be the buzz word for them. The Smithsonian is not in on some conspiracy, but if they say it enough somehow people will listen.

I hate to say it but the crazy stuff works on both sides of the aisle. After all as long as you do a good work, and do not impinge on the profit margin, most businesses could care less what you believe, or profess. Just so long as it does not involve the organization or company, in anything embarrassing or criminal. Just like the internet term NSFW.
Anyway, I hear Lyndon Larouche is still running for president.

Reply

Pacal

11/6/2014 11:17:19 am

Another reason why Daniel Radcliffe is cool!

Reply

EP

11/6/2014 11:30:34 am

I always assumed this was ironic:

http://p1.pichost.me/i/52/1759604.jpg

Reply

Pacal

11/6/2014 11:45:59 am

I don't know about it being ironic but it looks like a publicity still for the play Equus. When Daniel Radcliffe was 18 years old he played the young man in the story who was obsessed with horses. In play there is a scene where the character played by Daniel Radcliffe is nude which probably explains why he is shirtless in this photo.

Only Me

11/6/2014 03:08:44 pm

I'm thinking Giants lost so many viewers because of two things:

1) Oak Island deals with something real, surrounded by mystery and legend. Giants takes mystery and legend and tries to make it real.

2) If Giants copies the production of Oak Island so closely, maybe the viewers picked up on that and were disappointed once comparisons were made.

Realistically, the only viewers who would find Giants to pique their interest are generally the ones that follow shows like AA and AU. Maybe this is a sign that there is a limit to how much woo viewers are willing to accept?

Reply

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

11/6/2014 03:42:19 pm

Sounds like the audience for Oak Island may be less tolerant of woo than AA and AU viewers. So it may be a limit to how much woo SOME viewers will accept, in which case the schedulers erred in putting a high-woo show after a comparatively low-woo show.

I have never used the word "woo" that often in a sentence before.

Reply

EP

11/6/2014 03:48:03 pm

You're both quite optimistic, apparently. I think it could just be that these two shows, due to their spasmodic narration and seizure-inducing cinematography, are too exhausting back-to-back.

Also, it could be that Search for Lost Giants contains too *little* woo for its viewers. At least the Fundie part. They already believe in giants. Nothing short of a full skeleton with angel DNA, accompanied by scientific community's mea culpa, is going to keep them interested.

Only Me

11/6/2014 04:34:03 pm

Optimistic? Nah, not really. I was just entertaining possibilities as to why SfLG tanked with the viewers following Oak Island.

I look at it from this perspective: sure, having In Search of Aliens follow the format of AA, or, SfLG follow the production/format of Oak Island may save on costs, but how many cookie-cutter shows for one channel are too many? I think H/H2 may be pushing to find out.

Reply

.

11/6/2014 07:29:19 pm

they still are pouring money and production values into
A.U and are not pulling both these things from them...

@Only Me and @Not the Comte de Saint Germain—did the new season of Oak Island debut yet? I must have missed it. Couldn't really make it through too much of Lost Giants. Regarding production, formats for reality tv are relatively narrow, even when only compared to episodic television. To wit, there are only so many things you can capture "on the fly" with a film crew following around a couple protagonists attempting to summon drama and interesting things to watch. I think in these cases, the subject matter, actual spontaneous drama, and interaction between the characters and subject matter, has more of an impact on success than the specific production format. —it does seem the Lost Giants show will have a steep hill to climb if they're really only intending to rely on amplifying old myths, taking Bronze Age scripture literally, and resurrecting 19th century newspaper hoaxes.

I find it really amazing that History has decided to proliferate so much "woo," as Not the Comte says, through these offerings. The evolution in recent years that History has undergone reminds me of the cynical track that newbie politicians suffer; many run for office with laudable, high intentions, and after being elected and facing years upon years of having to make fundraising calls, what's called "call time" in political consultancy, eventually, incrementally, they begin accepting large-sized contributions that are relatively easy to secure; but of course, it’s a gradient Faustian deal which makes the politician beholden to these donors who are actively pursuing (and paying for) their self-interest. It's a sell-out; and an old story, to be sure.

History, in some of these shows, seems to be selling out. It’s too easy to stimulate neurons and heighten blood pressure with innocuous, yet entertaining, "woo." Sadly, any standards held up by real historians and students of science are dispassionately left on the cutting room floor. I would only hope that they will start ramping down the “woo” and turning-up real reality—and real history, which is their namesake, of course.

On a related note, I’m happy to share that the New-York Historical Society has featured some of my research in an article from Wednesday (linked on my name above). To me, real history is fascinating stuff. Maybe through Jason's efforts and others A&E, History, etc. will see the writing on the wall and begin to steer back toward the real world.

Not the Comte de Saint Germain

11/7/2014 06:58:47 am

Like I've said, I don't watch any of these shows. I only judge what Oak Island, or any of the others, is like based on what other people here say about it. Apparently Oak Island had its season premiere on November 4, with the series premiere of Lost Giants in the following time slot.

Duke of URL

11/7/2014 02:35:59 am

"The Smithsonian Institute seems to be a recurring theme in recent controversial discoveries. ... 1967 manuscript, “The Illuminati and the Council on Foreign Relations”."
Guh? Bwuh? My jaw hurts, it just fell so far open.
Is the History Channel (or whatever they're calling themselves today) a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alex Jones and his Infowars?

Reply

Sonny Crockett

12/17/2014 03:26:40 am

I love Oak Island, the story has always fascinated me. I liked "Giants" as well and thought it was cool when they showed what Lincoln had said about giants in a speech. I do believe the government has covered up and hidden stuff, but to what degree, I can't say. "Giants" tends to remind of another show I find entertaining: "Finding Bigfoot." Just when you think they REALLY got somethin', it's just Bobo, wanderin' around eatin' a sandwhich...

Reply

Leave a Reply.

About Me

I'm an author and editor who has published on a range of topics, including archaeology, science, and horror fiction. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.